Teach me differences about Proofs and Prooflike

1Bustcollector

Can someone please let me know how you might determine what characterizes an early 19th century Proof. I'd like to know about early bust material and what criteria a grading service may use. I am not so concerned what terminology the early Mint used and how wording has changed throughout the years. In other words, if a dealer brought me a so-called proof bust quarter or half, what should I look for...........generally speaking.

Wolf359

Early 19th century the Mint made very few Proofs. Mostly these are attributed by Die Variety. So you would have to purchase some books for the die markers. And even experts can disagree, I believe, on some of those coins.

Sonorandesertrat

"...In other words, if a dealer brought me a so-called proof bust quarter or half, what should I look for...........generally speaking. "

It better not be a raw coin---if an early coin, deemed a 'proof' by a seller, is not generally recognized as such (and graded as a proof by PCGS or NGC), then that pretty much ends the story unless you enjoy taking a BIG risk. Proof refers to a method of manufacture, proof-like (and deep mirror proof-like) refers to an exceptionally nice circulation strike that does not have notable luster. Years ago, Walter Breen authored a book, "Walter Breen’s Encyclopedia of United States and Colonial Proof Coins,1722 - 1977." Get a copy, study it (with a large helping of salt), and understand that there are, for a variety of coins, pieces out there that some individuals (typically, the owners) swear are proofs and remain controversial. There are also coins that have been termed specimen strikes as a way of bridging the divide.

lasvegasteddy

<< <i>"...In other words, if a dealer brought me a so-called proof bust quarter or half, what should I look for...........generally speaking. "

It better not be a raw coin---if an early coin, deemed a 'proof' by a seller, is not generally recognized as such (and graded as a proof by PCGS or NGC), then that pretty much ends the story unless you enjoy taking a BIG risk. Proof refers to a method of manufacture, proof-like (and deep mirror proof-like) refers to an exceptionally nice circulation strike that does not have notable luster. Years ago, Walter Breen authored a book, "Walter Breen’s Encyclopedia of United States and Colonial Proof Coins,1722 - 1977." Get a copy, study it (with a large helping of salt), and understand that there are, for a variety of coins, pieces out there that some individuals (typically, the owners) swear are proofs and remain controversial. There are also coins that have been termed specimen strikes as a way of bridging the divide. >>



raw or slabbed has no play in "proof or proof-like"...there's proofs which will never see the inside of a slab..."every slabbed coin was in the wild raw too"

proof----intentionally processed to be a proof example....polished planchet....specially prepared die...special strike procedures

proof-like---coins that display "like qualities of appearance"...but lack true 3 facts above..."planchet-die-process"....they usually are a business struck coin from a new die just installed on press machine and the operator is adjusting it for full speed operations

BG

Method of manufacture.

Proof
A coin usually struck from a specially prepared coin die on a specially prepared planchet. Proofs are usually given more than one blow from the dies and are usually struck with presses operating at slower speeds and higher striking pressure. Because of this extra care, Proofs usually exhibit much sharper detail than regular, or business, strikes. PCGS recognizes Proofs (PR) as those struck in 1817 and later. Those coins struck prior to 1817 are recognized as Specimen strikes (SP).


Prooflike
Term to designate a coin that has mirror-like surfaces, the term especially applicable to Morgan dollars. Those Morgan dollars that meet PCGS prooflike standards are designated PL.

lasvegasteddy

always better to teach yourself by in hand comparing one example of each...your eyes will lock on the differences

1Bustcollector

Thank you all for the replies...I do have a copy of Walter Breen's book but it is currently packed away in storage. Certainly, there are much more current books or articles or (?) out there where an individual can go? This is the 21st Century, I should not have to rely on what 30 years past or old documentation states as truth. I'm looking for helpful points in order to get me closer in determining a Proof. Should I need to rely on knowing a particular die marriage to verify a Proof? In other words, I should be able to get very close in determining a Proof coin and then merely double check to see if it came from so called Proof dies.......where are the pointers?

A) Squared reeding?
Fully struck or sharply struck-no weakness?
C) Deeply mirrored fields
D) Die engraver guide lines present?
E) Mirrored fields in between the shield lines?
F) Fabric of a Proof?
G) Dentils are broad, even and well defined?
H) What else?

Let' start here........

magikbilly

Generally, squared off lettering and numerals from polishing. Different, more defined fonts. Squared off/wire rim. Umm...

Eric

66Tbird

This coin is not a proof, it is proof-like. Missing a squared edge and a strong proof strike in general.